Facts
The petitioner sought the recovery of his 20-year-old daughter, respondent No. 4, who had left home on 11 July 2026 to sit an examination and did not return.
Source reference: p. 1–2He alleged that a missing-person report had been lodged but that the police had taken no effective steps, and sought a dedicated investigation team.
Source reference: p. 1–2Respondent No. 4 was impleaded and stated that she had left voluntarily to marry a person of her choice, did not wish to live with her parents, and opposed being placed in her father’s custody.
Source reference: p. 2Appearing before the Court, she confirmed on oath that she was an adult, had married Mohd. Abdullah of her own free will, and wished to continue living with him.
Source reference: p. 2–3Issues
Whether habeas corpus relief was available where the adult corpus stated that she was living with her husband voluntarily and was not unlawfully detained.
Source reference: p. 3–4Whether the Court should direct the police to trace and recover the corpus or constitute a dedicated investigation team in those circumstances.
Source reference: p. 1, 4Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that habeas corpus is available to secure a person’s release from illegal or unlawful detention, but cannot be used to compel an adult to reside with or accompany a particular person against her will—even if that person is her parent.
Source reference: p. 3An adult’s voluntary and unequivocal choice to live with a person of her choice must be respected.
Source reference: p. 3–4The order cites no statute or judicial precedent.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The corpus appeared before the Court and confirmed both in person and on oath that she was an adult, had entered into the marriage voluntarily, and wished to live with her husband.
Source reference: p. 2–3The Court found that the record showed she had left her parental home voluntarily and disclosed no unlawful detention.
Source reference: p. 3–4Because the essential basis for habeas corpus—illegal or unlawful detention—was absent, the Court found no ground to order her recovery or direct further police action through a dedicated investigation team.
Source reference: p. 1, 4Holding
The Court held that no writ of habeas corpus could issue because the adult corpus was not unlawfully detained and had freely chosen to live with her husband.
It dismissed the petition and affirmed that respondent No. 4 was at liberty to accompany the person of her choice.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
BASHIR AHMEDvsUT OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
